Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 13 | Who Killed the Electric Car? 1. Title, director and release year Who Killed the Electric Car? | Chris Paine | 2007 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? Who Killed the Electric Car? is a documentary that follows the birth, and death, of electric vehicles. In 1996, electric cars began to appear on roads all over California, and not even 10 years later, they were almost entirely gone. The film asks the question, “why did the gas car win over the electric car?” as well as “who killed the electric car?” The film covers the life story of the electric car, beginning with a time over 100 years ago when there were more electric cars than gasoline cars. However, with new means of mass production, faster speeds, and cheap oil, the gasoline car took over. In 1990, California regulation put into a place a zero-emissions mandate, requiring that so many of the cars in the state of California be emissions free. This resulted in GM’s electric vehicle program, starting with the EV Impact and progressing on toward the EV1, the first modern electric car in nearly a century. People in general absolutely loved the car, and it was relatively economically feasible from a consumer standpoint. The car companies began to fight the regulation, however, and it was changed to meet demand. Quickly demand fell, or at least according to the car companies, and the end of the electric vehicle arrived yet again. Many parties could be held responsible for the death of the electric car, and the film focuses on many of these implications. Most of all, the film leaves viewers with a sense of disgust at the system, again questioning, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Who Killed the Electric Car? brought up many possible reasons for the death of the electric car, each with its own sustainability problems attached. The only way to begin to understand this process is to look at the intense matrix of sustainability problems entangled in the electric car dilemma. Of all of the films this semester, this film surprisingly may focus on the largest variety of sustainability problems. While other films looked at more specific problems in depth, Who Killed the Electric Car? touches on a large variety of sustainability issues, and it is all of these issues together that truthfully killed the electric car. Political, legal, economic, technological, media, organizational, behavioral, and ecological problems all exist in the arena of the electric car, and the film does a great job of mentioning each one in an enlightening way. Packing so many issues into an hour and a half film is quite a feat, and it would be quite easy to go into depth about each one. However, for the purpose of this annotation, I will simply focus on a few of the sustainability problems drawn out in Who Killed the Electric Car? One of the first issues would be a combination of organizational and legal problems. The automobile companies were able to fight the California Air Research Board [C.A.R.B.] to revoke the mandate requiring zero-emissions cars, simply because it was not in their best profit interests to switch to production of all electric vehicles. They even became backed by the federal government, who sued C.A.R.B. With political and legal power behind them, the automobile corporations were able to continue doing what they do best: making a profit. They even legally took back all of the EV1s when they decided to take them off the road, and all of these vehicles were crushed and put in landfills or scrap yards, despite high popular demand by the consumers to keep the EV1s on the road. One quote from the film said that the car companies are “going backwards into the future, and that’s what they’ve been doing for decades.” The legal rights of the big corporations protect them from having to do things that may benefit the greater good if they do not also benefit the company. The media is another large component of the sustainability issues surrounding the death of the electric car. Any other time, the car industry uses advertising to reach their consumers, promoting their product as the best and leaving out any minor negative details. For reasons we’re still not sure of, however, GM never really advertised the EV1 very well. One EV1 advertisement was shown during the film, but the mood of the commercial was slightly creepy, and it really was not an effective marketing tool. A former GM sales employee said that GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 after they told the consumers all of its limitations. As the sales associate said, “if you actually want to sell, you don’t start by describing the limitations of the product.” In this case, a lack of proper media participation could be one contributor to the lack of success on a large-scale of the EV1. Economics also certainly played a large role, with car industries claiming they couldn’t make enough profit from the electric vehicles, while the vehicles themselves could operate at a cost equivalent to when gasoline is 60 cents per gallon. Technologically, the EV1 had some limitations, which both lowered its consumer draw and increased the company’s desire to discontinue it. Limited range due to the type of batteries was a key issue, although new battery types are constantly being developed that could have aided in this technology. Also, much of the resources today are going into researching hydrogen cells, a type of fuel that may be less efficient in the next year or two than plug-in hybrid vehicles. Consumer behavior goes along with the technological implications, namely that some consumers immediately assume an electric vehicle means tiny, cramped, and constricting. Changing these behavioral and cultural actions could possibly have helped to save the electric car. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I thought that Who Killed the Electric Car? was an incredibly excellent and educational documentary on the death of the electric vehicle. So much of the hour and a half was filled with important facts and figures. One of the more compelling scenes/storylines of the film was the group of activists who were fighting to keep the 78 EV1s parked in the parking lot in Burbank. They camped out for a few months, keeping a constant watch on the cars. When GM finally came to take the cars away to be crushed, the activists protested by blocking the driveway, the only way out. A few wound up getting arrested standing up for what they believed in. It is unbelievable that GM would simply crush all of these EV1s to make a point, essentially ending any reign the electric car may have been able to hold. So many scenes of the film were incredibly compelling, eliciting an emotional response, often in anger to scenes interviewing the car company executives. Personally, I did not know the story of the EV1, and the film did an incredible job persuading me of the true importance of the problem. The section covering the possible suspects responsible also did a great job of summarizing some of the main points 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I liked the part of the film where they go through some of the possible suspects of the death of the electric car, but I was not as convinced by the second section, which focused individually on a guilty or innocent verdict. The film did a great job giving enough information to let people draw their own conclusions, and I did not think the scenes of guilty or innocent were really very helpful in explaining anything new. Possibly these results could have been inserted in with the initial coverage of the topic, or simply allow people to draw their own opinions on what happened before you give them a few possible solutions to right what has been wronged. Overall, however, this was one of my favorite movies of the semester. 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? Who Killed the Electric Car? makes me want to look deeper at the consequences of destroying the electric car on new research and knowledge on more sustainable practices. It is amazing to me that we have previously had the technology to move cars away from gasoline, and now, rather than return to the electric model that many consumers were quite happy with, we are doing constant new research into hydrogen cells and other alternative energy sources. I would also like to know why GM crushed all of the EV1s; perhaps they were afraid someone would be able to steal their technology and surpass them further down the road. I am curious what the legal rights of the car companies are to take all of the cars back without any kind of safety recall or anything similar, refusing to let the consumers keep them. A lot of issues throughout the movie made me wonder how we allow so many injustices in our system. 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This film is excellent for a wide variety of audiences, as it addresses the consumer on a personal level. While the film has facts and figures, it does not hammer you over the head with intensive scientific information that could easily confuse the viewer. Rather, it covers the important points along the road of development of the electric car, and shows the large number of problems that arose along its way. Who Killed the Electric Car? is a very emotional film that makes us question the importance of big business in our capitalist system. I was quite angry after this movie at the car companies for getting rid of the electric car in their constant hunt for profit. I think the film is definitely likely to change the way the viewers think about environmental problems, especially about their transportation problems. It certainly made me realize that consumers need to preach to the industry what they demand, even if it doesn’t always work. The film certainly changed my mind on the automobile industry and the current research for alternative and more efficient forms of vehicles. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? At the end of the film, there is a short section that reminds the viewer that he/she can still be optimistic about the future. The film sais that we need to begin adapting to change, and in the meantime we can begin utilizing science and technology to change the world. The newest form of “sustainable” car is the plug-in hybrid, bringing back some of the technology from the EV1. There are many activist groups out there, and if you believe in their cause, you can help them to fight against this injustice by the automobile industry. The film also promotes working toward an independent energy future and becoming less dependent on gasoline on a larger scale, with many personal stories and opportunities for the individual. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? I thought that Who Killed the Electric Car? was an extremely educational film. It clearly described the steps and processes that the electric cars were a part of. As I mentioned above, this was one of my favorite films of the semester, and I really thought the film did a good job clarifying all of its points. Perhaps, however, you could focus a little more on the present issues surrounding the energy crisis, or maybe cover the rights associated with the EV1, to suggest that something like that either can or cannot be built again to closely resemble it.
1. Title, director and release year
Who Killed the Electric Car? | Chris Paine | 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Who Killed the Electric Car? is a documentary that follows the birth, and death, of electric vehicles. In 1996, electric cars began to appear on roads all over California, and not even 10 years later, they were almost entirely gone. The film asks the question, “why did the gas car win over the electric car?” as well as “who killed the electric car?” The film covers the life story of the electric car, beginning with a time over 100 years ago when there were more electric cars than gasoline cars. However, with new means of mass production, faster speeds, and cheap oil, the gasoline car took over. In 1990, California regulation put into a place a zero-emissions mandate, requiring that so many of the cars in the state of California be emissions free. This resulted in GM’s electric vehicle program, starting with the EV Impact and progressing on toward the EV1, the first modern electric car in nearly a century. People in general absolutely loved the car, and it was relatively economically feasible from a consumer standpoint. The car companies began to fight the regulation, however, and it was changed to meet demand. Quickly demand fell, or at least according to the car companies, and the end of the electric vehicle arrived yet again. Many parties could be held responsible for the death of the electric car, and the film focuses on many of these implications. Most of all, the film leaves viewers with a sense of disgust at the system, again questioning, “Who Killed the Electric Car?”
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Who Killed the Electric Car? brought up many possible reasons for the death of the electric car, each with its own sustainability problems attached. The only way to begin to understand this process is to look at the intense matrix of sustainability problems entangled in the electric car dilemma. Of all of the films this semester, this film surprisingly may focus on the largest variety of sustainability problems. While other films looked at more specific problems in depth, Who Killed the Electric Car? touches on a large variety of sustainability issues, and it is all of these issues together that truthfully killed the electric car. Political, legal, economic, technological, media, organizational, behavioral, and ecological problems all exist in the arena of the electric car, and the film does a great job of mentioning each one in an enlightening way.
Packing so many issues into an hour and a half film is quite a feat, and it would be quite easy to go into depth about each one. However, for the purpose of this annotation, I will simply focus on a few of the sustainability problems drawn out in Who Killed the Electric Car? One of the first issues would be a combination of organizational and legal problems. The automobile companies were able to fight the California Air Research Board [C.A.R.B.] to revoke the mandate requiring zero-emissions cars, simply because it was not in their best profit interests to switch to production of all electric vehicles. They even became backed by the federal government, who sued C.A.R.B. With political and legal power behind them, the automobile corporations were able to continue doing what they do best: making a profit. They even legally took back all of the EV1s when they decided to take them off the road, and all of these vehicles were crushed and put in landfills or scrap yards, despite high popular demand by the consumers to keep the EV1s on the road. One quote from the film said that the car companies are “going backwards into the future, and that’s what they’ve been doing for decades.” The legal rights of the big corporations protect them from having to do things that may benefit the greater good if they do not also benefit the company.
The media is another large component of the sustainability issues surrounding the death of the electric car. Any other time, the car industry uses advertising to reach their consumers, promoting their product as the best and leaving out any minor negative details. For reasons we’re still not sure of, however, GM never really advertised the EV1 very well. One EV1 advertisement was shown during the film, but the mood of the commercial was slightly creepy, and it really was not an effective marketing tool. A former GM sales employee said that GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 after they told the consumers all of its limitations. As the sales associate said, “if you actually want to sell, you don’t start by describing the limitations of the product.” In this case, a lack of proper media participation could be one contributor to the lack of success on a large-scale of the EV1. Economics also certainly played a large role, with car industries claiming they couldn’t make enough profit from the electric vehicles, while the vehicles themselves could operate at a cost equivalent to when gasoline is 60 cents per gallon.
Technologically, the EV1 had some limitations, which both lowered its consumer draw and increased the company’s desire to discontinue it. Limited range due to the type of batteries was a key issue, although new battery types are constantly being developed that could have aided in this technology. Also, much of the resources today are going into researching hydrogen cells, a type of fuel that may be less efficient in the next year or two than plug-in hybrid vehicles. Consumer behavior goes along with the technological implications, namely that some consumers immediately assume an electric vehicle means tiny, cramped, and constricting. Changing these behavioral and cultural actions could possibly have helped to save the electric car.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought that Who Killed the Electric Car? was an incredibly excellent and educational documentary on the death of the electric vehicle. So much of the hour and a half was filled with important facts and figures. One of the more compelling scenes/storylines of the film was the group of activists who were fighting to keep the 78 EV1s parked in the parking lot in Burbank. They camped out for a few months, keeping a constant watch on the cars. When GM finally came to take the cars away to be crushed, the activists protested by blocking the driveway, the only way out. A few wound up getting arrested standing up for what they believed in. It is unbelievable that GM would simply crush all of these EV1s to make a point, essentially ending any reign the electric car may have been able to hold. So many scenes of the film were incredibly compelling, eliciting an emotional response, often in anger to scenes interviewing the car company executives. Personally, I did not know the story of the EV1, and the film did an incredible job persuading me of the true importance of the problem. The section covering the possible suspects responsible also did a great job of summarizing some of the main points
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I liked the part of the film where they go through some of the possible suspects of the death of the electric car, but I was not as convinced by the second section, which focused individually on a guilty or innocent verdict. The film did a great job giving enough information to let people draw their own conclusions, and I did not think the scenes of guilty or innocent were really very helpful in explaining anything new. Possibly these results could have been inserted in with the initial coverage of the topic, or simply allow people to draw their own opinions on what happened before you give them a few possible solutions to right what has been wronged. Overall, however, this was one of my favorite movies of the semester.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Who Killed the Electric Car? makes me want to look deeper at the consequences of destroying the electric car on new research and knowledge on more sustainable practices. It is amazing to me that we have previously had the technology to move cars away from gasoline, and now, rather than return to the electric model that many consumers were quite happy with, we are doing constant new research into hydrogen cells and other alternative energy sources. I would also like to know why GM crushed all of the EV1s; perhaps they were afraid someone would be able to steal their technology and surpass them further down the road. I am curious what the legal rights of the car companies are to take all of the cars back without any kind of safety recall or anything similar, refusing to let the consumers keep them. A lot of issues throughout the movie made me wonder how we allow so many injustices in our system.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is excellent for a wide variety of audiences, as it addresses the consumer on a personal level. While the film has facts and figures, it does not hammer you over the head with intensive scientific information that could easily confuse the viewer. Rather, it covers the important points along the road of development of the electric car, and shows the large number of problems that arose along its way. Who Killed the Electric Car? is a very emotional film that makes us question the importance of big business in our capitalist system. I was quite angry after this movie at the car companies for getting rid of the electric car in their constant hunt for profit. I think the film is definitely likely to change the way the viewers think about environmental problems, especially about their transportation problems. It certainly made me realize that consumers need to preach to the industry what they demand, even if it doesn’t always work. The film certainly changed my mind on the automobile industry and the current research for alternative and more efficient forms of vehicles.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
At the end of the film, there is a short section that reminds the viewer that he/she can still be optimistic about the future. The film sais that we need to begin adapting to change, and in the meantime we can begin utilizing science and technology to change the world. The newest form of “sustainable” car is the plug-in hybrid, bringing back some of the technology from the EV1. There are many activist groups out there, and if you believe in their cause, you can help them to fight against this injustice by the automobile industry. The film also promotes working toward an independent energy future and becoming less dependent on gasoline on a larger scale, with many personal stories and opportunities for the individual.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I thought that Who Killed the Electric Car? was an extremely educational film. It clearly described the steps and processes that the electric cars were a part of. As I mentioned above, this was one of my favorite films of the semester, and I really thought the film did a good job clarifying all of its points. Perhaps, however, you could focus a little more on the present issues surrounding the energy crisis, or maybe cover the rights associated with the EV1, to suggest that something like that either can or cannot be built again to closely resemble it.